Photo editing or not

[KmH]

For me the "technicalities of digital processing" are mostly about tone mapping from linear to a gamma-encoded space because the camera's analog, linear image sensor doesn't 'see' the way we humans see, which is non-linear.

 

[c.cloudwalker]

A TRUE photog does no editing whatsoever! He/she is a master of the one shot kill/shot.

Editing is for pussies. Either that or for real photogs.





Real photogs and TRUE photogs are very different breeds.

 

[The_Traveler]

Unless you need to do things like darkening the sky, removing or replacing objects and the like,

Greybeard hit the nail on the head.
For many people and styles and subjects, there just isn't any way to get a perfect picture sooc even without bit-level editing.
In an uncontrolled environment, you take the shot you can get and work from there.

If you always shoot senior shots or portraits in a studio or landscapes where you get to wait until the light is 'right', then maybe only a little PPing is all you'll ever need.
For those of us who shoot where we can get it, we use all the tools we can.

 

[fokker]

If you had to choose between lightroom and photoshop, its lighroom for me all the way. i do about 95% of my editing in lightroom and only use photoshop for serious stuff.

This is what I do too. Unless you need to do things like darkening the sky, removing or replacing objects and the like, Lightroom will do what you need and much more easily and faster than anything else.

Yep, although I've just started using LR's gradfilters and brush tool a lot more, which are not only both great tools on their own but they also completely reversible and editable edits - that's the true beauty of lightroom for me.

 

[BananaRepublic]

Editing software is a tool that photographers use. I do I am not a pro but I find it a necessity to get the best/beater final result. A plumber or mechanic don't need spanners or wrenches always but they wouldn't get fare without them.

 

[EIngerson]

You will never see a photo I've taken until it's been "developed". I edit every photo.

 

[dennybeall]

WOW! a resurrected 4 year old thread - truly a ZOMBIE.
Very interesting subject though and I vote with the "Edit everything to make it better!" gang.........

 

[jake337]

I'm sure I've said this before but......

Post processing is just as important as pre-planning and everything in between.

 

[imagemaker46]

I try to get as close to being perfect coming out of the camera, but realistically, getting the composition right at the start is what I'm really trying to do. I always make adjustments to the images, even if it's just a small crop or contrast adjustment. Pretty much always minor adjustments. I'm terrible with keeping my horizontal lines straight, so that one almost always gets the fix. I hand hold all my lenses and shooting sports and following plays it doesn't take much to get a little out of straight.

 

[table1349]

 

[ShootersIN]

I look at digital post processing is the same as when I was manipulating the film and print development ... you cannot avoid "processing" after exposure of the initial medium.

I always try to take the minimalist approach.

In most cases ... if the image sucks ... it will end up as a post processed sucky image.

i have been shooting Raw sense 2008. My photos look great but i also shoot brackets for hdr. Photo editing sees beyond the image you shot and sometimes there could be 2 or 3 images from that one shot you took. Not to mention removing subjects or backgrounds from the photo. Sometime wb needs to be addressed or sharpening of an image or adding or taking away color. Photo editing is a much needed tool for photography. I am starting a business where i take an image and can turn it into a painting or drawing. What you discussing is perception more then editing. Perception can change when your looking at a photo. I learned that from NYIP and my favorite teacher Michael Freeman. I love His Books. Don't close off your minds Eye. Its valuable

 

[imagemaker46]

I look at digital post processing is the same as when I was manipulating the film and print development ... you cannot avoid "processing" after exposure of the initial medium.

I always try to take the minimalist approach.

In most cases ... if the image sucks ... it will end up as a post processed sucky image.

i have been shooting Raw sense 2008. My photos look great but i also shoot brackets for hdr. Photo editing sees beyond the image you shot and sometimes there could be 2 or 3 images from that one shot you took. Not to mention removing subjects or backgrounds from the photo. Sometime wb needs to be addressed or sharpening of an image or adding or taking away color. Photo editing is a much needed tool for photography. I am starting a business where i take an image and can turn it into a painting or drawing. What you discussing is perception more then editing. Perception can change when your looking at a photo. I learned that from NYIP and my favorite teacher Michael Freeman. I love His Books. Don't close off your minds Eye. Its valuable

The business you're starting where you turn an image into a painting or drawing, isn't that a simple photo shop filter? I do a lot of graphics work and use photo shop for all that, photographically though I can't be removing objects or changing backgrounds, mostly media related pictures.

 

[calamityjane]

I do little to no PIXEL EDITING, but I post process everything. Of the game I just processed I shot 237 images and I tossed about 40 of those for being totally jacked or I just plain didn't like them. Of the keepers I edited none. I post processed all of them by applying a curve, a bit of noise removal, raw sharpening and adjusting black level. All of which I have set up Adobe Camera Raw to do automatically for me. To process those 200 images took me about 30 minutes from flat and crappy to this:

You will improve as you gain knowledge.

Post processing is a necessity. EDITING is not.

EDITING is vital - editing is deciding what to keep/prioritise and what to throw out. Then comes processing.

 

[DanOstergren]

When I first started taking photos, I retouched and processed every shot, and I spent hours doing it. 7 years later, I do anything I can to reduce the amount of editing I do to my photos. I used to spend hours on a single photo. Now I try to find ways to use light to "retouch" for me, which cuts editing time by more than half, and every once in awhile I just leave a photo as it was captured. Editing is definitely not necessary to the craft, and can be avoided in many instances. I often see photographers say that they use editing to make their photos better, and then I see their photos and realize that they ruined them with editing. I think it's a good exercise as a photographer to learn to "edit" before you take the shot, and learn to appreciate your photos without manipulating them.

 

[The_Traveler]

When I first started taking photos, I retouched and processed every shot, and I spent hours doing it. 7 years later, I do anything I can to reduce the amount of editing I do to my photos. I used to spend hours on a single photo. Now I try to find ways to use light to "retouch" for me, which cuts editing time by more than half, and every once in awhile I just leave a photo as it was captured. Editing is definitely not necessary to the craft, and can be avoided in many instances. I often see photographers say that they use editing to make their photos better, and then I see their photos and realize that they ruined them with editing. I think it's a good exercise as a photographer to learn to "edit" before you take the shot, and learn to appreciate your photos without manipulating them.

This is plausible where there is time and opportunity 'to use the light.'
Many circumstances just don't allow that because the photo opportunity is unpredictable and fleeting and Mother Nature may just not cooperate.